The Sun. — London, England, 1836-08-02 00:00:00

was, ductien of. 30 per cent. from the income of the ow n ee. i of 25 per cent. , as in the Bill of last year. The Lords have raised the rent-charge to 751., there appearing t o be no reason for deducting from the income of the clergy 5 per cent. more this year than Ministers themselves proposed to deduct last year. The " appropriation clauses," which were re peated in the Bill of this year, have been struck out by the Lords, who , so far from permitting the Ministers to cushion the measure after the fashion of last year, have carefully amended it throughout, and returned it to the Commons efficient for all good ends, but neither apoliatina the church nor saddling the consolidated fund with a new charge of one or two millions. It is great importance that the public should bear in mina what the Bill, as amended by the Lords, effects. It puts an end to tithes in Ireland, and establishes a rent -charge in lieu of them, payable by the landlord in consideration of a deduction of 25 per cent., of which the landlords will have the benefit. All the pasties to this commutation are satisfied, so that at least this ground of clamour will be stopped up, and tranquillity in the ,'ame proportion be restored to Ire land. The remaining i'eortion of the Bill applies to th e se auistion of the ecelesia:tacal establishments in Ireland,—pruning where necessarv,--increasing where there ought to be increase,—and getting -rd of thoese bl em i s h es by which the church is deformed. Can a Bill be with decency rejected ? The rejection of it would, in our opinion, be a most unjustifiable and scandalous proceeding.—Times. It is this evening to be determined by the House of Commons whether the Irish Tithe question shall be le gislatively set at rest, or indefinitely postponed, for the gratification of a domineering faction. Nothing now stands in the way of that settlement, save the extra vagant and unjustifiable determination of the Roman Catholic Radical faction, and the IVlinisterialists, who have become subject to that faction, that they will not suffer even their own plan for the commuta tion of tithe into a rent charge, payable by the owners of the land, to become law, unless the Bill shall em body a c e rtain abstract principle, with regard to Church property, which has no natural nor necessary connec ti on with the practical matter to be adjusted. This is the real state of the case ; and, looking at it thus, it seems scarcely credible that in a period whi c h is vaunted as peculiarly enlightened, and in a House of Legislature which proudly calls itself " Reformed," so great a piece of folly should be g ravely maintained, and so obstinately adhered to. Wet find the Ministers in both Houses—at least, we have hitherto found them—asserting in the same breath almost, that the change of the tithe into a rent charge payable by the landowner was of most vital im portance as an act of policy, of justice, and even of humanity, and yet that it would by them be abandoned unless the " appropriation clause' was made part of the law which should effect this change. But we have never beard any attempt to show why the importance, or the justice, or the humanity of this would be less, because the principle which was adopted from the O'Connell party at the beginning of 1835 should not happen to be coupled with it. We have never seen any argument to show that there really was any con nection between the operation of the proposed law for changing the nature of the Church's claim upon landed property, and the acknowledgment of the appropriation principle by Act of Parliament. We remember, indeed, much argument and much eloquence having been em ployed to show that the exaction of tithes by Protes tant clergymen from poor Roman Catholic occupiers was a bad system, productive of bitterness and hatred be tween the Protestant Church and the Irish peasantry. We have heard of the ruinous effects upon the character of all parties concerned, from the working of this tithe system—of the hard-heartedness and worldliness which it impressed upon the character of God's servants, and the miserable distress, and consequent detestation and revenge, on the part of the Roman Catholic peasantry, to which it led. Our sympathies were appealed to as sufficient evidence that a system which wrung from the soaring peasant the cow or the potatoes on which his family depended for existence, and did this for the sup port of a religious establishment in the instruction of which he could not participate, was a system which reason and feeling must alike condemn. " Liberals" were never weary of this theme. Every time that the subject came before them some new argument arose, some fresh appeal to the sensibilities of the country was invented, for the purpose of exhibiting in the most vivic colours the necessity of putting an end to the tithe sys tem, and providing for the Church in some other way. What then shall we now say to the consistency of these Liberals, who, having it in their power to effect all that they have represented as so desirable, refuse to do so ? Have they forgotten the force of their own argu ments ? Have their hearts become callous to those re presentations of misery, arising out of the tithe system, with which they assailed the hearts of others ? Un doubtedly this must he so, if when the opportunity of making the change they have so long contended for is in their hands, they refuse to avail themselves of it, because they will not be allowed to have another and a totally distinct subject settled, not only at the same time, but in the very same Bill. Every argument and every representation they have heretofore made must • rise up in judgment against them to condemn the fac tious obstinacy with which they now re t ar d t h e accom plishment o f their own views. By such obstinacy they prove that the sufferings and agonies of the poor peasantry which they have so often dwelt upon—the injustice of forcing tithes from Roman Catholic occu piers, instead of from Protestant landowners, which they eclaimed upon, are after all nothing in their estimation, compared with carrying a p o i nt of party controversy in a particular way. • They had rather that all these sufferings, and all this injustice should con tinue, than that they should be removed by an Act of Parliament from which an abstract principle uncon nected with the business of collecting the property of the Church, should be excluded. It is offered to re lieve the Roman Catholic occupiers altogether from the payment of tithe, and to levy a charge in lieu of that tithe from the landowners, who are almost all Pro testant ; and this, it is said, the Liberal" party will refuse, because they may not enact at the same time, that provided there-he a surp l us o f revenue b eyon d what th e service f th e Fstablished Church requires, it shall b e app li cable to the ' education of all religious classes. Sorel}, factious ou s obsti nac y, an d bli n d neg l ec t of practi ca l good, cannot hin ders th e paity which calls itself this. What aself Liberal, to take so much of g o od as is offered' by adjust men t o f th e tithe que s ti on , i n t h e manner they the prop ose d them selves, an d t o b r i ng i n another measure sl to establi s h th e approp r i a ti on pr i nc i p l e ? It is a i tical f a ct can b e , t h at , w i t h all the powerear as a, which ,y the Li beral party ma y s u ppose i tse lf to possess, enough of pow e r t o se t t l e t h e I r i s h tithe' question, has not a n d to carry the appropri a ti on p r i nc i p l e in one Bill. man with enough of sense to know time diffe rence between a vote for and a vote against—betives m possi bility and impossibility, must know this to be the fact. Supposing then that it be desirabl e t o carry both—that is, both the commutation of tithe and the appropriation principle, what madness must it not be to insist upon carrying them both at once ? This amounts to saying that " though both be very desirable, we will have neither, because we cannot have both," which is ab surd. We earnestly hope that enough of Members will be found this evening to see this absurdity, and to turn the scale in favour of moderation and ,common sense —to take what they can get, and leave what they cannot get at present for future settlement. We be lieve the ‘. appropriation" principle to be an exceed ingly bad principle, and we hope it may never be ad mitted in an Act of Parliament; but if we ri - n.ich in its favo ur as we are ag we would ainst it, were as not insist upon it at the very time that by so doing we should foifeit the settlement of the Irish tithe ques tion.—Morning Herald. To-night the House of Common s will be once more called upon to decide upon the appropriatio n principle of the Irish Church Reform Bill—a principle which may fairly be considered as vital to the continuance of the existing Church Establishme n t . in Ireland —vital to the stability of the Melbourne Ministry—and, more than all, vital to the peace of Ireland, and t o t h e per maucnce of her union with Great Britain. The H ouse of Commons has so frequently and so distinctly de clared itself upon this question; and the country has been so surfeited with discussion upon its merits, that it is as insulting to the representatives of the people to attempt to force them to retract their reiterated con firmation of the principle, as it would be offensive to the people theinselvtas to'vaste words in insisting, upon lieliegessity.pf a measure the justice and expediency of whia aamit of no questidn in any honest and rational mind. The result of this evenings debate is not to be considered only as it affects the Irish Chnech, but as it involves consequences which affect all parties and inte rests in the country. As regards the Irish Church, even if the appropriation clause were carried through both branches of theregislature, still the 'proposed Bill could not be considered as either a satisfactory or permanent settlement of the question ;—and we are only sur prised at the forbearance of the Irish people in con senting to accept, even as a temporary a djustment, any , measure which sanctions the unholy principle of mulcting the majority of a people for tlui support of the religion of the minority. The people of Ireland should never be satisfied until the religion of the ma jority receive, at least, as much support 4114 prOteCkpn from the State as that of the minority. Scotland is allowed the undisturbed enjoyment of her national creed—then why should not Ireland ? For this rea son, it is not on account of the sueee44 pf the pending Bill that we wish Ministers an increasing majority this evening, but on account of the horrors to which Ire land Will be exposed, if by any ffttAlity the House of Commons should prove faithless to their duty, and even f or . b, day suffer a ruthless and sanguinary faction to ‘-iumpli over the Ministers of the people. Of this, how -re need be no apprehension, There will not be ever, tie_ ehe Irish Church carried this Session ; any reform of the total abolitionii pue tiloroolifgitointheQs,f nor do we regret it, as or the recognition by the u . P . a te of , is sv worth the the majority of the people, e.. chase of a few months' delay, and one or both of these results must inevitably be the consequence 61' de ferring the settlement of the question. In this regard, the Tories, by their opposition, are placing the best spoke in the wheel of Reform, and accelerating the ve locity of its motion. But, should Ireland see herself deserted and betrayed by the Commons of England— and the Ministry pledged to do her justice ousted from office by a faction sworn to her persecution, it is fearful to contemplate the measures to which, in her despera tion and abhorrence of Orange ascendancy, she may have recourse. If the Commons shrink from the asser tion of the appropriation principle, we expect nothing less than a rebellion in Ireland. Are the Tories pre pared to drive a whole people to insurrection ? Do they imagine that England would lend her aid against a people, the justice of whose quarrel she should ap prove ? Wellington, in very despair of ruling Ireland by the bayonet, yielded Catholic emancipation. He well calculated the resources he could command, and the opposition he should have to contend against ; and after the blustering of his supporters, similar to the foolish swaggering they at present indulge in, the Great Captain, like Macbeth, despairing his charm, turned recreant, with the exclamation—. " I will not fight with thee I" Ireland has not lost, nor has the faction gained hi strength, but the contrary, since that time. Will the Tories or Churchmen then dare to brave a nation's vengeance ? We implore them to pause ere it be too late ; if not for the sake of Ireland, for their own sake, we entreat them to abandon their opposition to a na tion's rights, and by a speedy acquiescence with the demands of justice, endeavour to make some atone ment for the manifold wrongs which Ireland has suf fered at their hands. Let them not make a principle which their advocates, however falsely and for party purposes, describe as " barren," the grounds of a civil war. Has not enough of blood been already shed in Ireland in attempting to uphold an Establishment re pudiated by the people, without pouring forth fur ther oblations on the altars of persecution ? of all kinds, and in all countries, has been ever desecrated by evil-minded men and made the pretext of the blackest crimes, and of this no country presents a stronger illustration than Ireland at the present moment. There we sec oppression, and plunder, and murder devastate the land in the mask of Chris tianity, and the ministers of the Gospel enforce the word and the tenths with the Bible in one hand and the bayonet in the other. Who can be surprised that Protestantism has retrograded under such a disgraceful system ? We repeat that the Church system in Ire land is both disgraceful and criminal, and they who contend for its perpetuation cannot be sincere friends to religion of any kind, and least of all to the Estab lished religion of Ireland, now sinking under the ac cumulated abuses in defence of which they are so clamorous. We have no doubt of seeing an increase to the Ministerial majority this evening, though, thanks to the Lords, we need expect no benefit to re sult therefrom in the present Session. In the next we must be prepared to go to the root of the evil, and reform the House of Lords itself. This now must be the key to all future reforms. We may waste Session after Session in idle debates, without accomplishing any good, until this first great and necessary measure be accomplished. The chief text of our commentary for months to come must be Reform the House of Lords.—Morning Advertiser. The question to be decilled to-night in the House of Commons is, simply whether the Legislature shall do something or nothing towards the suppression of that anti-tithe war in Ireland, which is but another name for social disorganization, for the ruin of property of every description, for the paralysis of honest industry, for the uncontrolled career of robbery and murder. The Ministers of the Crown, and those Members of the House of Commons who support them, mean, it is understood, to express, by their votes to-night, that in their estimation the anti-tithe war is a good thing— that it is truly liberal to regard social disorganization as a matter of indifference—that the ruin of property of every description, and the paralysis of honest in dustry, ought to be endured without regret—and that the unabated career of, robbery and murder is an evil j of the most insignificaiitcharacter compared with that of the House of Commons seeming to abandon, for a moment, the abstract and inoperative principle of ap propriation by means of which the present Ministers of the Clown forced themselves into office. The Ministers of the Crown have made their choice, and they expect that this choice will be ratified by a majority of the House of Commons. We lament that such should have been the decision df the Government of Gr ea t Britain, for we do not think that a continual succession of murders, or that the state of society from which a continual succession of murders must necessarily flow, -e desirable things. But th e e l ect i on , i t appears, i s made ;a if the House of Commons do not this evening disappoint the expectation of his Majesty's Ministers, the Irish and the British people must abide the consequences. We wish to treat this cre :tion without the slightest indistinctness or equivocation ; and we declare our conviction to be, that every Member of_the House of Commons who votes to-night for the rejection of the Irish Tithe Bill will be morally guilty , of eve r y c r ime of robbery, and arAn, and murder which the present state of the tithe law in Ireland may pro : duce for the next year. This sum of guilt is awful to ' c is iiten iplate ; but there is not, we believe , in our mode of computati on th e s li g ht es t tendency to exaggeration. admitted ties th at i f t 1 by stat e smen of all grades and por tico a commutation of tithe were ef fected in Ireland as . would exonerate the Roman Ca cliche tenantr a y r( fr som its immediate payment, much would s b e e cu d r o i i t i y e , towards This is certainly an eir t a h t e t ze d s a to a r t a p t r io o n spe o r f ity s ,, ta t l ha p t e c a o ce un a tr n; l . til l indisputable, an d we ma y therefore why is su c h a commutationti ( isp t n a o b t l e t , 0 p b r e o l e i w o s e i c t t i c o c r i i .? OW,l'i s it take it t o b e ' an because the terms of this commutation cannot be By no means. _ . There . is no dispute agreed upon ? about terms but what is s the Church of Ireland prompt and easy o f The e e ellaeyry'o proposed arrange adjustment. Is it because wishes to make, under colour p obflethoef arrange ment, some inroad upon the property sub jects of the Crown ? By no means. the Protestant Church of Ireland are quite satisfied with the arrangement embodied in the present Bill. I s it because the landholders of Ireland are dis s atisfied with the proposed settlement ? Nothing of the kind. The landholders of Ireland would to a man hail this settlement as a harbinger of prosperity and peace. Why is it, then, that the Bill is to be thrown out ? It is fit that the world should comprehend this last question, and the reply—the only reply which it can possibly receive. The Bill intended to put an end, and which would put an end, to the career of robbery and murder in Ireland is to be thrown out, if his Ma- : jesty's Ministers can command a majority in the House of Commons, bccause the , house of Lords have re jetted certai n c l auses which appropriate att and pvspective.stirplus of Churf.:ll r''' .. assumed ni to thelrposes of general, (D' p in . mtr e in Ireland man Catluilic education. , other words, Ro 'is admit, for the sake of argument, that the rejecting of this part of the Bill by the House of Lords is to be ascribed thoetttneerrcwitphretjlulediceleauasteisd which obstinacy. Let us admit, for that tliv Tithe Bill would be the nesl;viltiltesl3l without : It litleg;heen hid' the Lords have expunged rds i Still it c i a l‘ n ,e n, - ) e t xi b ) e un i g )r e e d te a n r t e le e d ss t e h n a . t dal parts of a Bill for the commutation of tithe. If part of the revenu e of the Church ought to be alienated from that institution, for the purpose of providing for the education of Raman Catholic children, that is a proposition which is worth a separate Bill, or it is worth nothing. It is a proposition which has no ne cesarY or eren natural commotion with the commuta tion of tithe. If it be a tenable proposition, and the House of Commons wishes to sustain it, the house of Commons can sustain it without mixing it up with foreign matter. Why then is it mixed up with the foreign matter of tithe commutation ? The capse is manifest, It is known that the principle of tithe com mutation is strong—it is known that the principle of appropriation is weak ; therefore it is that those who have blended their official e4istenee with the latter principle seek to strengthen it by an unnatural alliance with the former. It is horrible to contemplate that, in a civilized community, ther e should be m en willing, f o e th e sa k e of place and its paltry and sordid emoluments, to make themselves thus mo. mlly responsible for the outrages, robberies, and murders which, for a whole year to come, the rejection of the Tithe Commutation Bill by the House of COM• 111011 S will certainly produce in Ireland. This horror is Increased when we recollect that the men who have made the basis of the crimes which condemn Ireland to poverty and wretchedness their stepping-stone to office, and the very support of their official existence, are the same, who, by their previous language and • conduct in the Legislature, taught the Irish subjects of the ,Brown that every crime they could commit in resistance to tho collection of tithes was justifiable. The Ministers who seek to keep themselves in place by the vote of this night will stamp themselves by that ngs a veryv i o l d t e as e an principlesdm in Administration r e a i t v i i o l t i t z ed repugnant society. to Theytli e have e incited to the crimes which tear society in pieces. They will have prevented the enactment of a statute by which these crimes would have been suppressed. They will ihave consented to protract their official life by an atrocious alliance with the habitual violators of the law. They will, in a word, have become the avowed Ministers of violence, rapine, and bloodshed. --Morn ing Post. - - _ ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE, ROME ClRCUlT.—Gulzpron.o, Juzr 30. Thomas Harris, aged 28, labourer, and James IVood, aged 20, labourer, were indicted for having, on the Bth of December, 1833, feloniously and maliciously set fire to a barn, belonging to Robert Hart, a farmer, at Ash Farm, Wick, Worplesdon. At about five o'clock in the evening of the Bth of De cember, 1833, the barn in question was discovered to be on fire by James Hart, the younger, the nephew of Robert Hart, and the prisoners were seen helping to extinguish the flames. It appeared that some ill will existed between the father of James Hart and his brother, Robert Hart, and lie and his son were taken up on suspicion. The two prisoners were also apprehended, but all the parties were subsequently discharged. A reward of one hundred pounds was offered, but no clue was obtained to the per petrators of the fire until a short time since, when a man named John Christmas was charged by the prisoner Wood with having stolen a fir tree. Christmas, when appre hended, told Mr. Waterer he would tell all about the fire ; and he subsequently stated and deposed at the trial, that be was smoking his pipe on the evening in question near Ash Farm, and saw the two prisoners in a lane near the barn. Wood told him they were going to set Robert Hart's barn on fire, and asked him to go and help th em . H e sa id h e did not mind walking with them, but he would have no thing to do with setting the barn on fire. When near the barn he turned his head round, and on looking back lie saw Wood striking a light into a tinder box, which Harris held in his hands. Shortly after that he saw the barn on fire. He was very much frightened, and ran away as f'ast as he could. He did not run far, but came back, and helped to put out the fire. The prisoners, on being called on for their defence, said they were innocent, but left it to their Counsel. The jury delivered a verdict of Guilty. His Lordship passed sentence of death in the usual form The following from N a pl es , o f th e 12 t h instant, is extracted from the Augsburg Gazette :—" Every thing an nounces that a new eruption of Vesuvius is at hand. The smoke is not, however, as yet very perceptible ; but the in. clined plane near the crater is burning, and the excessive heat of the soil can hardly be endured. The general opinion is, that eruptions always succeed very hot summers; it is a phe nomenon tht has been remarked. Vesuvius, however, is thought to be in a state of decline ; during the last 20 or 30 years the elevated cone that, surmounts it has been lowered by more than 300 feet, and the coming eruption must lower it still more. The last calculations give the mountain an eleva tion of 3,460 feet. Prince Charles of Capua, with his charm. ing wife, showed himself on the Neapolitan frontier, and was refused admission, by order of the King. Nothing can yet be said of the approaching oil crop ; th e trees h ave l ess f ru i t on them than was expe c t e d ; but nothing positive can be said before the end of August. The exports of oil from Gallipoli, for the first half of this year, have amounted to 50,000 salmes, of which 14,650 were for the Baltic; 8,850 for the North Seas, Hamburg, Bremen, Rotterdam, and Antwerp ; 20,870 fur England ; and 2,000 for the Black Sea." CAMPAIGNING AT ALGIERS.--A letter from Algiers, given by the Toulonnais, after speaking of the suf ferings of the troops from the intense heat, gives the following as an extraordinary effects of its influence :—" During the first day's march from Oran to Tremecen, four soldiers shot themselves, three of them at the same place, and immedi ately one after the other. They belonged to the 24th Regi. ment, their day's march had been short, they had plenty of provisions, had reached the camp, and were on the borders of the river, and consequently free from any present sufferings, nor had they any reasonable apprehensions for the future. Their suicide, therefore, can only be attributed to the effect of the sun's rays upon the brain, which must have become deranged." CAPTURE OF A TORTOISE.-_A few days ago, a large tortoise was taken at the edge of the Carr Dam, Water loo Road, by some batters, who had promiscuously congre gregated there. This amphibious animal had several times been seen about the same place, and parties had as often en deavoured to secure it. However, on the above occasion, it was buccaneering a few yards inland, when the above party, running up to the animal, stepped between it and the water, to which it was making very rapidly, and, turning it over, took it captive. There is no ordinary mode of accounting for the pre sence of the tortoise in the Carr Dam ; the only probable cause assigned is, that Mr. Jones, of Churchgate, brought several of a like species from America some time back, and they have all effected their escape, but whither or how has never been ascertained.--Stockport Advertiser. TILE `WATERY SAlNT.—Friday, the 15th, was Saithin's, and it having rained copiously throughout the day, the believers in ancient augury expect it to rain forty s more or less ; but let us hope the weeping saint has expended too much of his watery stores on the onset, to be able to con tinue the deluge. There is no need of a miracle to account for forty days' rain at the period of St. Swithin's festival. Experience has amply shown, that whenever a wet season sets in about the middle of July, when the heat of the sun is usually the most intense, it generally continues to nearly the end of the summer, when the action of that orb has considera bly abated ; the rain affording matter for exhalation, always naturally the strongest at the hottest period of the year, and those exhalations yielding, in return, matter for rain. RUSSIAN CA RELESSNESS.—I have frequently seen a Russian waterman climb down the granite banks of the Neva to reach his boat, or to fasten it to the iron ring of the shore. Clinging with the tips of his hands and his feet to the almost imperceptible divisions of the morticed squares, the fellow seemed to stick to the stone. E rr i ng, even a finger's not conveni ent still s i ng i ng', he for him. H e w ill width, would have precipitated him i nto t h e waves ; this, even take his siesta upon the parapet of th e r i ver, which is no more than about a foot broad, and here t ranqu i lly repose in thinksholy however, matters he crs does could n o tfear b e more i n the sunshine, though a single restless motion in his sleep would wake him in a cold bath. But, according to his ideas, this is clearly v impossi b le. Sh ou ld any one warn him o f hi s d anger, he replies very tranquilly, " Neboss l" (do not fear 1) and this " Neboss 1" always bears him through. It is a fact, that when the sun in the spring had already rendered the ice very unsafe, so that police were placed on ea ch side of the Neva t o pro hibi t the crossing, a • commo n Russian, singing hi s ballad, undertook the perilous pass. Upon arriving at the opp os i te side, he ob served that the police were preparing to greet him with stripes. "Neboss l" says he, laughing, and turning round, an d recross ing the crackling surface to the shore he had come from, he escaped the attentions of the guards. Upon the raising of the column of Alexander, one of thei rollers used in the operation caught the hand of a labourer, and threatened to draw the whole body of the man slowly beneath the terrific weight, which would inevitably have crushed him. A Russian carpen ter, standing close by, instantly seized his sharp axe, and call ing out " Neboss 1" at one blow struck off the poor creature's arm; he was immediately conveyed to the hospital, where he speedily recovered ; and, as well as his resolute amputator, re ceived a life annuity of five hundred rubles elach.— Tiet's St. Petersburg& GUST 2, 1836. IMPER/ &IA PARLIAMENT. _ROUSE OF COMMONS; Auausr 1. The SPEAKER tOGii the Chair at the usual hour. LEITH AND NEWHAVEN RAILWAY. On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the Edin burgh, Leith, and Newhaven Railway Bill was read a se cond time and ordered to be committed. POOR LAWS. Colonel RUSH BROOKE felt it his duty to offer an explanation relative to a statement made by the Hon. Member for - Finsbury on Wednesday evening, on the pre sentation of a petition by the Hon. Member for Berkshire, and complaininc , of oppressive conduct pursued by the Overseers of the Union of Stowmarket. The Honour able Member here read an extract from the speech of Mr. Wakley on the occasion referred to, and proceeded : these observations having been communicated to him when in the country, he had seen the Clerk and some of the most active. of the Guardians of Stowmarket, and he was able to give the most complete refutation to them. With re spect to the first case, the Guardians never knew of it, and never applied for such leave from the Commissioners ; and with respect to the second, they had never heard any com plaint of the humane and skilful gentlemen who held the appointment of surgeons to the Union. They also added that the aged and infirm had received an addition to their out-door allowance last winter. He was most happy to be able to refute such scandalous charges. Mr. WAKLEY said he had, on Wednesday last, at .once given the name of his informant. He begged to say that he was not answerable for the misrepresentations of the proceedings of the. House which went forth. He had not made the statements alluded to in the way they were re ported ; but there was considerable excitement in the House when he spoke. The first charge of the blind man being ill and being refused the attendance of his wife till an order arrived from the Commissioners did not apply to Stowmar ket Union but to Besemere Union,. the other charge re specting the Surgeon related to Stowmarket and they had been confounded together.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Hon. Member after reading the letter he had received stating the case, observed that the only difference between that written statement, and the one he had made to the House, was that the Guardians bad told the unfortunate indi'.idual that he could not receive any assistance, instead of the relieving officer. Captain GORDON had made most anxious enquiries on the subject, and he was informed that no such case had occurred as that alluded to by the Hon. Member. Mr. WAKLEY. was most willing to furnish the Hon. and Gallant Member with the name of his correspondent, and he thought, after that, he would not question the truth cf the statement. Mr. WI LKS presented a petition from the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, and the Board of Guardians of Ket tering, complaining that under the Poor Law Bill the poor who were in workhouses were not allowed to attend divine worship, and praying that some measure might be adopted to enable them to do so. Mr. MANSELL concurred in the prayer of the peti tion, which was then laid on the table. CHURCH RATES. _ _ Mr. HODGES presented a petition from some parish in Kent, praying for the abolition of Church Rates ; also two petitions from the same county, in favour of the re moval of the Jewish Civil Disabilities. COLONIAL LANDS COMMITTEE. Mr. WARD brought up the Report of the Committee, which was ordered to be printed. NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the Mer chants and Traders of Greenock, complaining of the great difference in the amount of duty that was levied on Spanish vessels returning with fish from Newfoundland, and British vessels, stating unless some alteration was made in the existing reciprocity laws with Spain, the trade of this c o unt r y wou ld be much injured. The difference of the duty upon fish landed in Spain from Spanish vessels, was 21. 13s. less than on British fish. They stated that they considered they ought to be allowed to enter Spanish ports equally as free as Spanish vessels were allowed to enter the ports of New foundland. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would attend to the prayer of the petition. The Hon. Member also presented a petition, most numerously and respectably signed, from Inverary, in Argyle, also re specting fish, but fish caught on our shores. (Hear, hear.) The allegation of the petition, was very unusual; it stated that the fishermen of Scotland, Ire land, and Holland, had found out the breeding places of the herrings, and had resolved there to catch them, and that since the discovery was made the fishery generally throughout the west and north of. Scotland had annually decreased. They prayed the attention of the President of the Board of Trade and the Government, with a view to protection being afforded. No trade was more entitled to receive the protection of the Government than the herring fishery, which was fully of as much consequence as the salmon fishery—(Hear)—there being no less than 100,000 vessels employed in that trade on the coasts of Scotland and the northern coast of Ireland. Mr. G. F. YOUNG had, three years ago, felt it his duty to call the attention of the Government to the Reciprocity Act ; afid the conduct of the Spanish Government, which pressed most severely upon British interests. The reply of the Government at that time was, that the political state of Spain was such as prevented the Act being strictly en forced. He hoped the matter would be taken into consi- deration by his Majesty's Ministers. Captain PECHELL in seconding the petition of the Hon. Member for Greenock hoped he would undertake a Bill for Scotland, similar to that which he (Capt. Pechell) had brought in for the protection of the English fisheries. Mr. P. THOMPSON said that great efforts had been made with the young Queen of Spain to enter into an ar rangement which would be mutually advantageous to both countries. He was sorry to say that there did exist a jea lousy with part of the Spanish Government towards the British navigation, that Government having only a small commercial marine. The petitioners complained that fish from Newfoundland paid more when carried in British than in Spanish ships, and they prayed that a duty might be imposed upon the fish. Now to use a vulgar expression, that would be " cutting off our nose to spite the face ;" for we could scarcely even now compete with the Spanish in their own market, and by im posing a duty upon the fish we would not only lose the car rying as at present, but we would also lose the sending of fish altogether. Mr. FIELDEN presented a number of petitions, but in so low a tone of voice as to be inaudible in the gallery. Mr. LUCAS presented a petition from the minister and parishioners of a parish in Cloync, complaining of the delapidated state of their church, the want of funds in the hands of the church commissioners to repair it, l and pray ing fur some parliamentary enactment upon the subject. The. SPEAKER thought the petition could not be re- eeived as it asked for a grant of money. Captain PECHELL presented a petition from.the Ease Preston Union in favour of the Poor Law Amendment BRIGHTON MUSEUM. Captain PECIIELL presented a petition from Jll Patron and Council of the S c i en tifi c I ns tit u ti o n, and from,, Museum, in the borough of Brighton, praying their petition might be referred to the Select Committee in the British Museum, in order that they might get duplicate copies of letters, &c. of the Poor - of the parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark; stating that they could cot enforce the pi;ovisions of the Poor Law Amendment Bill without violating their consciences. The country was much indebted to the Hon Member for Berkshire, f or h av i ng so perseveringly pressed . thii subject upon the attention of the House. Mr. WAKLEY presented three petitions from place.s in Carnarvon, Norfolk, and Suffolk, against certain clauses in the Poor Laws Amendment Bill. On the Order of the Day being read, Mr. WALTER said he could assure the House that he regretted the necessity for his troubling. the House, which he would not have done, had his petition from Petworth been received by the House in that sprit which its importance ought to have commanded ; but having then been denied an opportunity of stating his opinions, and being anxious for fair play, he felt bound to press the matter upon the attention of the House.--,(Hear, hear.) He would, however, not abuse the indulgence of the House, and would confine himself to the complaint contained in the petition he had presented from the magistrates, guardians, &c., of Petworth, who were not averse to any change in the poor-laws, but they nevertheless objected to some of the provisions contained in the new law—especially to that provision, which put an end to the system of out door relief to aged and infirm paupers. The magistrates had declared it to be inexpedient to comply with the pro visions of the law as it related to wages. 'Well, then, as to the new Poor Law Act, to correct the evils of the old system it had been brought forward, and whelk it was attempted to be carried into effect, there was nothing to be heard of but remonstrance and complaint. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read several cases in which the operation of the Poor Law had been attended with great oppression, and particularly adverted to the case of a female who had been treated with the utmost severity. Why was this poor woman to be imprisoned, and indivi dual charity taxed to relieve her from oppresSion ? The guardians of the poor refused to carry the Act into effect with all the severity that attached to it, and had resigned their situations. Lord Brougham had said in the House of Lords, that no one had ever dreamt or imagined that • the husband would be separated from the wife, or the child from the parent.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Walter) would ask had no one ever dreamt of such a thing ? Would to God that that was not the case. Not only was it not the case, but it had been carried into effect with fearful severity.,—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble Lord,•the Secretary for the Home Department, bad stated that one of the rules that had been lately made was, that husband and wife should be separated.—(Hear.) The savings, if any, which might be effected by this Bill, would eventually find their way into the pockets of the landlords in the shape of increased rents. He understood also that this Bill was not to be applied to the whole of England—he was informed that it had not been introduced into Lancashire, and that it was not in tended to be. Why was this ? No one in the country but would have cursed the Reform Bill, could they have foreseen that one of its first fruits would have been a Bill for separating the children from parents, and the husband from . the wife. He then read extracts from a number of letters he had received upon the subject. The Hon. Member then read several other communications which he had received from Newbury, Dorsetshire, and other places, showing the neglect and cruelty that had taken place . ; and concluded by moving a resolution, which was to the effect that the House would at an early period of the next session, inquire into the operation of the new Poor Law Act, especially that part which caused the separation of husband and wife, and parent and child. Mr. CRIPPS contended that this Bill had certainly bad a most beneficial effect ; and, in his opinion, the country at large were under the greatest oblige tions to the Noble Lord who had brought forward the measure. When he said that, he never dreamt that it would be a perfect or unalterable measure, or one unattended with difficulties. —(Hear, hear.) He would say, that no Bill of the importance that this was, ever found so many difficulties in the way of its operation. But the difficulties stated by the Hon. Member for Berk shire (Mr. Walter) were general objections. It was true that he laid particular stress on two or three clauses, but he went almost, if possible, to annihilate the Bill.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He did not say that he (Mr. Walter) wished to put an end to the Bill, but his objections went quite as far—it was plain, from the objections the Honourable Member made, that he wanted to oust the whole Bill. He (Mr. Cripps) had been apprehensive that great difficulty would arise from one clause of the Bill, viz., that which prohibited totally and entirely relief to able-bodied men. He did feel that there would be great difficulty in the way in which this clause might be construed, and he did expect that it would in a great measure be construed in the way it had been; He believed that out of a population of 20,000 individuals not a single child had been sent to the Poor-house. In some cases that had come before him the fathers and mothers were un able to support their children, and he had asked whether they had any objection to send them to the workhouse ? The answer was, " none in the least ; we know the person who manages your workhouse, and he is a most excellent , man." With regard to the statement that had been made, that the children were kept upon bread and cheese and water, he believed the only complaint that had hitherto been made was that they lived too well. In the parishes round London in which he (Mr. Cripps) had made inquiries, the answers he received went completely to contradict the assertions that had been put forth.—(Hear.) In the Union to which he belonged they had desired the medical officers to put down on paper what r e li e f was to b e g i ven to paupers — t h a t paper was given to the relieving officer, and every pauper was dieted accor di ng l y. He ' had investigated into cases in many parishes, and he had never found a more contented people than he had then seen. If Gentlemen would but lend their aid instead of making objections, they would then most essentially serve their country. The Bill in his opinion, had operated wonderfully—it had relieved pa rishes that were under great difficulties before, and thegood effected by it was most unquestionable. Parishes which before could not pay their poor-rates, were now enabled to pay about fifty per cent.—(Loud cheers.) He hoped that those gentlemen who had such erroneous notions on the subject would not persevere in their statements that the Bill would never have a good effect. Lord J. RUSSELL must say that be did not participate in the apprehensions of the Hon. Member (Mr. Cripps) that anything that fell f rom th e H on. M em b er f or Berk shire would have a dangerous or mischievous effect, or would render this Bill unpopular in the country. There was a time when the measure of Poor-law Reform was thought a very strong measure, and when it required great boldness on the part of his Noble Friend (Earl Spencer) to maintain such a measure in that House, and to carry it into law. At that time there were (if he might call them so) great personal interests in favour of the abuses of the Poor Laws. In the first place, there were the able-bodied paupers, who liked subsistence without work much better than the wholesoMe wages of labour.—(Cries of " Hear.") There was also the nume rous class of shopkeepers, wh o f oun d t h e i r b est market in the parish funds, and obtained very exorbitant prices. In the next place, there was a small portion, he must say, of the magistrates of England who endeavoured to obtain a false reputation for humanity—who represented themselVes as exclusively the friends of the poor—(Renewed cheers) — and who promoted the old 'abuses of the PnOr Laws. These were instigated and moved on by the efforts of a portion of the press—(Loud and continued cheers) — who lent themselves td the 'most mischievous ef forts to misrepresent and traduce those who wished to reform the Poor Laws, and to represent all their efforts as tending to the injury of the poor.—(Loud cheers.) There were undoubtedly great obstacles in the way of reform, but there happened to be circumstances that tended very much in favour of the success of that reform. There was in the first place the circumstance that this was .not o t f be the gr e e t a •i t l made a p f a t r b t o y m q a u g e i s s t t i r o a r y o ( f L E o n u g d l a od cheers)—next ooolioood portion o tendency of the existing laws, were willing to try an experi ment of reform.—(Hear, hear.) With these circumstances in its favour, Lord Althorp was enabled to carry the Poor Law Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Among the many abuses that Bill was intended to remedy, there was none that was more striking or injurious than the practice of defray ing the expenses of labour out of the parish rates. This was a praCtice which had been denounced by every Committee that had investigated the subject; by Mr. Sturges Bourne's Committee in their excellent report of 1816, by the Committee on labourer's wages in 1824, again most strongly by the Committee of 1828, and again by the fullest and most complete evidence furnished by the Commissioners of Inquiry, who, in numerous papers which he would not detain the House by quoting, showed by the testimony of unimpeachable wit nesses that the practice tended not only to injure property , an d to occasion a great waste of time and revenue, but to destroy the independence of the labourer.—(Cheers.) This abuse, strong and strik ing as it was, the Hon. Member for Berkshire was now endeavouring to restore to its full vigour. This, and no other, was the object of the motion then before the House. When the Bill for the Reform of the Poor Laws was first brought forward, the question arose in what manner the abuse should be met. One proposal was, that out of doors relief should altogether cease within a certain time after the passing of the Bill. This was subsequently abandoned ; but he was not incorrect, he believed, in stating that it was proposed that after a certain time—the Ist of June, 1835 — the payment to able-bodied labourers from the poor-rates should wholly cease. When the point came to be discussed and reflected upon i n the HOuse, it was argue d ( ver y justly as it seemed to him) that the sudden and entire abolition of a pr ac ti ce which had been very general in some p arts country might p rove very i n j ur i ous , if not dangerous, in the of effects ; and th at i t s h ou ld b e l e ft t o the Poor-LawCom missioners to fi x some t i me , according to their discretion and their knowledge of .the different eircumstaire%,i ferent places, at whieli that new rule should be caiT' n ' effect. Accordingly, the Poor-Law Bill having bee s crito i s the law of the land for two years, the Poor-Law ition sioners had begun to carry this principal int° ( W e ' r e ' s , tlion various places. It had been established in no syr twelve unions in K en t ;. i n man y vo luntary, in ' tlla suant to the. recommendation of the Commissione r `'.' " all he believed with the best effect. many unions.i The sex, too, the same rule had been successfidly adop I tei t : c _ for , Hon. Member for Berkshire had adverted to the prac incrly pursued in Petworth. Why- this practice %vas dircetei'•er'y posed to every effort oldie Poor-liew Commissioners, an 1 .1 t b e principle on which the Bill had been passed. So leng e ' jo t labourer lived upon his own wages he was an indeP 0 6' 10 man, with feelings of honest independence in him. _ let him derive a portion of his subsistence from tri?ro to rates, and this feeling deserted him. He would beg t re refer the Hon. Member to some questions which . „, or by the assistant Commissioners-to the managers of the err?, at Newbury. It had been stated that some of tlielabo 0,15' derived assistance from the poor-rates. The ques t ti g her asked, " Do the rest of the labourers receive o we be• wages than those who obtain parochial relief?" ", " inio nr, lieve their wages arc the same" was the reply. the large class of labourers" was the next (I" es for " Among the large class of labourers who do not ew-n l e ar ,J relief; is there not a great proportion of married men and ion men who have large families ?" " Yes—we kimv the re st ill " Receiving no higher wages than the others, thl s t he maintain tl'eir families—do they ~not ?" Wb' t Wa t reply ? was the They arc above coining to the parish."—(Chccrs . ), JIB e x wished comingto m t a o i maintain.—(Chee rs.) n p . " fe Y e e li s ng they do, but how they do so we canno roir wished t him those were the enemies of the labouring el' sse oC , ii C s see tllCn ii i e a ' b V o i S ‘ ‘ England wjio wished to inculcate into their hearts this b ° rec b• and manly spirit of independence.—(Cheers.) de in' be had just read was very naturally followed uP by tated quiry whether this fact did not lead the person oh° s olo — ari ( s! C i it to the inference that other men might live in °e a. flc way; to which interrogatory no answer was r eturne t he maintain e d, then, that it was most desirable to cstabli s por sixthsneiv principle p e w r l s l o e n r e s v t e o r could be established. The , ,tenedrsgulstcolic Law Commissioners had done 11 Fr °. • e 3, the gen l: ra hL bee n IWPII d 11 3 they had received no complaint wli e ate r :er, and they " 3 00 4 numerous proofs th at t h e reformed p ra ctice had been it. beneficially a d op t e d . The Poor Law Commissiel g rent parts of the country ceived weekly, almost daily, communications from " 1 E tbo amended Poor Law, some from its o ponents, but tho° all agreeing that the measure had acted P rather he" e ". fi c Y ; some from the advocates lost they could have expected. Those who were sant ss eti , first were astonished to find their expectations s ul r - , r igi and those who had feared evil consequences w ere , fli su-. t51 . 1 ; that such different results had taken place. He --il b s Yt' both with reference to the case now brought forivard 0 0 0 , Hon. Member for Berkshire, and that introduced bY ots plaint to snake, to apply • Member for Southwark towards the end of last session,. co . tho Poor-law Commissioners, or the Board of would be but fair for any Hon. Member who had • ber r in, the first place either 0 Guarum ho w the Home -office. In s t ea d of pursuing this course, sl ov e r ever, which app eare d to h i m to be the fair and ob vieu 'er r gentlemen ca me d own to the House w i th some con'mucl'e tion they h a d j ust received, and stated it on the t han k it n s o n iv o i t ng re t e i e la is t • inthgeaonryi g contradiction n t fo v r y oaulwdeteke socrotToynii,io:o3in .to whom the contradiction would never he known• - ; 1 ` v or hear.) This was the case last session, when the l' e ac eg able Member for Southwark brought forward a s tat t e at so late a period, that it was matter of the utro°, s- ra the culty t . o . obtain the necessary information in reply be l tisil er final rising of the House. He was lad the Hon; '"", her for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had not yet spoken' - ri e wished to read for his information a letter froin° l - o ce , the Assistant-Commissioners , whose intelligence, visl with and activity, could never be sufficiently prais cu l e t.r reference to his statement relative to Stoorillt,d (Hear.) After stating that the board of guardians u "„t0 termined on preparing a memorial to the Home S ecret denying the alleged facts, and demanding the dlse t tl l ° of the name of their accuser, the writer stated, fir s bps(' there were only two married couples resident i n he el' market-workhouse ; secon dl y , t h at all the others houtirtiel dismissed on out-d oor a ll owance ; thirdly, that the r ,„, iii so dismissed lived with their wives ; fourthly, that so Jelf the workhouse, they were separated from their wive s n P" on account of the necessity of their residing in the i of mary ; fifthly, that they were allowed to visit their Iv in the day-time as often as they. desired ; sixthly, that ti dp availed themselves of this permission daily ; seve r . ( ! ise ti, that the statement that out-d oor re li e f h a d been reTioill because the surgeon had neg l ec t e d th e i r cases, was ',food, without foundation ; an d, l ast l y, that 'William Gr een l ifenr the unfortunate blind man , i n w h ose b ehalf the Hon. 'fib° ber for Southwark claimed the peculiar sympathy fo ° ,. his House, was not blind, an d was a very capable nian,-fais' years.—(Hear, hear, a n d l aug ht er .). S uc h was t'bteaif statements which had gone a b roa d. I t was unM i n tb° necessary to enf orce a grea t d ea l o f restr i ct i o n e a on paupers in workhouses ; but both in this respect , r eas ioo the subje c t o f th e di e t ary , cons id era b le m i saPP re had arisen. On the latter point the Hon. Gentlete e oo o had just sat down had given most important testi to which he (Lord John Russell) could' add t ha t 0 01 guardian of the poor, who had refused to pronounces s ilt opinion on the dietary until be had lived upon it i o ti o weeks, who did live upon it for that period, and statehood expiration that he had never been so strong or in O c .. e colir bodily health, an experiment which he earnestly is eiso mended the Hon. Member for Berkshire to try in b `nt°, person.--( Hear, hear, and laughter.) After refel% c 'heJ some other documents, not one syllable of' which ol eat the reporters' gallery, the Noble Lord said that at e '', to effect of the present system of Poor Laws hAd cederl3c ether, bring the Magistrates and farmers to co-operate sew n and to constitute one central local • board, acting, % am the j neral and well defined rules and regulations, in w e , . ao whole administration of the Poor Laws was vesft• he would venture to say that this establishment 0 .6 car ee r vernment, with good laws to guide and inspection,.. t _ en . o late e them, had been productive of an efficient and well 1- 11 5 0 0 0 , 1 g system which had never existed previously. An", (3 ,_ Dill b others, Lord Spencer, who, since the Passing of tes s, acted as a guardian of th e p oor , had borne his timony to the efficient and admirable working of sta tino tem.—( Hear, hear.) H e wou ld conc l u de by ao amount of expenditure connected with the Poor their administration for the last few A moun t of ears. ado re , Year." ll° o 1834 . • • • £ 6,317 'n00 1835 1) 4,7 20 ' 000 1836 • being a decrease, as compared with 1834, x.,.99,000 In 1835, of In 1836, of • 1,596,000 ,001., 58,u be The sum expended for law-suits was, in 1 834 ' A nd t in 1836 171,000/, showing a decrease of 87,000/• , ; vitie b a. total amount of decrease, under various head, s ' y e ar 1 4 . need not trouble the House by repeating, in tn e ISt' ing on the 25th of March, 1836, as compared ,v 1 was 1 ,7 9 4,990/.—(Cheers.) the - 4 Mr. ROBINSON h a d h ear d noth i ng fall'r:n,-al ~pose" ,st Member for Be r k s hi re w hi c h had led him —'llesire•t° he was 'actuated b y any other than an anxious blab remedy tbe evils in tbe existing system ofoocg'.l r t the _, e e that Hon. Gentleman, in common with himself , ' e a , c har% istence of. The question was, whether so great te C er r l act had not been made too abruptly ? He was cl e L that it could not have been so well carried i n t o ' c rca: o ; under less favourable circumstances. Of these tile gren stances the increased demand for labour ana lbi , ite: t cheapness of provisions formed no inconsiderable that He was, therefore, justified in contenne'br s• e the savin g of 1,794,9901 . , w hi c h the N had stated, had not arisen exolusivelonpose`a the Poor-law Amendment Act. He be had noti a nd the Bill on its original introduction ; be had 0 .n e 1,,,,d it in parts. • Among other of its provisions, D . 1 5 ; w hi lti P t with his most strenuous opposition a P rin f lP pe r il l he hoped, neither his Majesty's Government 4f e ct-T_ l r , House would ever allow to be carried into fu e l' s `;_ viia teo: l meant the principle that, under no circumstari should any relief be given to be able-bodied ues' but a bstrae - ' L ice might be a very good principle in the _ ri d ink° a t. might it not be productive of great hardshipA.A. wa s in cases of sickness, or wanfof employment , l a t a ir.,if e most as bad ? Again, the separation of man ra n co l t i a g di t e u , he would submit to the Noble Lord, not only at to the the the feelings of the people of this Country', ted th4v ffee' tates of humanity itself. He sincerely trus to f c Noble Lord would be enabled to attain his objet on either Of tually amending the Poor-laws, without actinge its par these principles, in every case, without reference w ont 'ther 4 , Ocular circumstances. On another point- - Ice r . ll _ fi r st j ° a , bastardy, clause—the opinion be had stated o n ; use W ll a g remained as strong as ever. Thatniii. It v!. more repugnant to his feelin gs th an any in the w bo monstrous to visit an unfortunate young wool ti Jo full into so desolate a situation for the first time 0" P tier consequences of a c r i me i n w hi c h a man equallY ; g pated, and to relieve him f rom the cost of ma inta a :t ho • own child, except— w h en ?— w h en the parish, and woman, became chargeable with its m ainterntar-!•, ave bell_ Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET shoultt . . iar car glad to hear some other explanation of the part' N e bit' e brought before the House than that afforded hY ta L,`_.,,, e t i o i ; Lord, who had limited his observations to a st:'" up the evils consequent upon the practice of makingrates. wages of able-bodied labourers out of the poor-ecce was 0 (Lord G. Somerset) fully admitted that the pcn e bad one, and ought to be put a stop to ; at the s un '. i t cad Lord that he did not understand from the Noble ,,,, the , o po" e " been wholly abolished, although he believed th ted by Commissioners had established the principle sta WINDOW TAX. The Marquis of CHANDOS presented a petition from a clergyman (whose name we did not catch) residing in the county of Bucks, complaining of the heavy window tax he was compelled to pay. POOR LAWS. Mr. H. WILSON regretted he had not been present when the • statement was made by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, relative to the Stowmarket Union, because be believed that no allegation of unkindness or harshness could be proved against that body. He held in his hand a statement, which had been drawn up at a special meet ing of the guardians, in which they contradicted the whole of the allegations that had been made. • Colonel RUSHBROOKE begged to inform his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Wilson) that the Hon. Member for Fins bury had already given him the name of his informant. Mr. WAKLEY said that his informant had told him that he had no objection to his name being made use of; and that was the reason why he had furnished it to the Hon. and Gallant Member for Suffolk. STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. _ _ _ _ _ _ The Marquis of CHANDOS moved that a Message be sent to the other House of Parliament, to request them to furnish this House with a copy of the evidence taken at their Lordships' bar on the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill. —Agreed to. RAIL-ROADS. Mr. Pe THOMSON, in bringing up the report of the Select Committee on Railways, said that he would propose that the resolution s o f the Committee be printed ; and, if that were the opinion of the House, th a t they should be taken into considerati on on Wednesday (August the 3d). He begged to give notice that to-morrow he should move that the House do sit on Wednesday at three o'clock, for the purpose of taking these resolutions into c onsideration. After a few words from the SPEAKER (as we under stood) relative to the inconvenience of sitting at that hour, the resolutions were ordered to be printed. POOR LAWS. On the Order of the Day for the House going into Com mittee on the Customs Duties Bill having been read, Mr. WALTER rose to present the petitions of which he had given notice from the Guardians of the Poor of Wallington, in Berkshire, and another place, praying that the power at present given to two Justices to give out-door relief in cases of adults should be extended to widows with small children. Mr. HARVEY presented a petition from the Guardians